There are other transgressors: Saving Private Ryan forgets that even the landing craft delivering US soldiers to the D-Day beaches were piloted by the men of the Royal Navy
{smack} Welcome to the concept of supporting forces. The French 2nd Armored Division all the way through France using American armor, American vehicles, American weapons, American ordnance, and serviced by American mechanics. The Canadian Army largely used British equipement. British supplies were delivered across the western front using American trucks.
A number of other folks have mentioned Frank Welch and Ken Taylor. Note for the records that after being nominated for the Medal of Honor, it was denied on grounds that they had taken off without authorization, and they were thus awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for their actions that day.
A quick comment - the corporal identified the raid as a large number of inbounds, but the Air Defense Coordination center OOD identified the inbounds as the B-17 flight that was expected that morning - even after being informed that the inbounds were coming from the wrong bearing.
The corporal, whose name I forget, was shortly thereafter pushed to OCS, and came out a 2nd Lieut. by mid 1942.
Re:It's not just Linux, but how it's used
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that's been the case for about 8 months now. Alias/Wavefront ported their renderer for Maya 2.5, then ported the entire package for Maya 3. We've been running the beta since last fall, and been quite happy. Happy enough that it's our first production renderer.
Y'know, there's a number of different options here, depending on what you're trying to do. The problem is, you talk about the format, but not about the real issues. "VCS" is actually a pretty easy term to throw around, but not quite so easy to lock down when you're talking about documentation. That being said...
First, if all you're after is the ability to accept/reject changes to documents, then the simplest solution you want is to turn on the "Track Changes" option. You can leave the master "track" on, then either display or not display changes in either printed or written form. Also, you can selectively accept those changes to the base master document. All changes are also tracked by author, time/date, etc.
Second, if what you're after is protection of source files, then you really are going to have to implement a VCS for your writers. I've used a number of them, and fundamentally, none of them are easy for non-technical people to use without training/etc. Perforce and Clearcase both work reasonably well for cross-platform doc checkin, but, well, they're not exactly the easiest thing in the world to use. A simpler solution might be to have a decent server, and have it incrementally back up _every_ change to the doc section. You'd be surprised how easy that makes it to roll back changes. If you're also willing to be a little anal in the server setup about who owns files, it should become fairly easy, fairly quickly to resolve ownership/etc. issues.
Third, I noticed you were also talking about PDFs, and how the documentation was difficult to access. Two points here. The first is that you probably should stress to much about storing output (PDFs, generated HTML) in VCS, rather than storing source files. If you can store source properly, storing generated doc (PDF/HTML) becomes _very_ easy. The second is that making your documentation easy to access is an entirely different issue from puttingg it in a VCS. That's a matter of putting together a clear, logical structure that makes sense.
As a case in point, one of my clients about a year ago had _all_ of their documentation stored in VCSs. Their problem was not that it wasn't protected - it was that, in the course of 2 mergers, and going through 4 different writing teams, they'd _lost_ their documentation source. So before I could write word one, I had to go find the docs, sort out the doc structure, and get everything so it could once again be found and accessed.
One relatively easy-to-use structure that I've seen involved differentiating the source vs. output, and making the output available on an internal webserver. Output was automatically regenerated on a regular basis (simple scripts took care of most of it, or you can use the monkey model, and do it manually), so it was available to the entire company. Those people who needed to mess with the source files were taught how to use the VCS.
Most of this I agree with. Some things I'd have to disagree with.
The only companies that can make money online are companies that can also make money offline. There is nothing fundamentally new about the internet, and by the law of diminishing returns it is a lot less revolutionary than the telegraph and telephone were in their day. It eases communication and remote business, sure, but it does not provide some new paradigm.
Correct, in that the internet isn't a new paradigm. Incorrect, in that there are companies that work in an online environment, that do not work in an offline environment. Why? Because the company business model is tied to a access/communications/distribution (pick 1, 2, or 3) model that relies on the internet. eBay is a great case in point. There are lots of others.
Because in 10 years most businesses will be running dumb terminals and applications will be actually running inside the software giants houses, whether something is open source or not is largely irrelevent.
Y'know, people have been saying this for >30 years. I watched it when Tymnet was launched. I watched it when Apple started shipping computers. I watched it when IBM started selling PCs. It's no more true now than it was then.
What will, potentially, happen is that business-oriented applications, OSs, and software, will move toward a centrally-run-and-managed paradigm (lease vs. own, etc.). "Home" use, however, is moving more and more towards peer-to-peer capabilities (no, I'm NOT talking about Napster-ish services), with consumer-oriented service brokers being the business model. Look at games - they're often a technical leading edge for what happens in mainstream consumer computing a few years later.
I was also aware of Northpoint's threat to take legal action again block switchovers.
I was also aware of the ISP negotiations ongoing with Northpoint that, as of mid-day Weds. (last time I checked) were looking promising.
My first expectation was that Northpoint's customer base would be sold to another company as an "existing asset".
My second expectation was that, failing sale of the asset, my feed provider (RCN) would receive sufficient notice that we could reprovision in a rushed-but-orderly manner.
What I did NOT expect was that:
Northpoint's bankers would abruptly try to screw everyone involved at the last minute.
Northpoint would void their own legal statements (that they were trying to preserve the customer base as a bankruptcy asset).
Northpoint would immediately destroy a major asset (their customer base) in a fit of pique.
The Bankruptcy court would ALLOW Northpoint to destroy a major asset.
Northpoint, as a regulated carrier, would ignore state law to execute their shutdown.
You tell me - I had a reasonable expectation of an orderly transition period. I didn't get an orderly transition, I got NUKED.
I'm just curious if the other providors are going to be able to handle this many people scrambling for access.
Well, I can only speak for my experience, but since our original is through RCN (nee Brainstorm), I asked them about T-1ish feeds, and was told that they'd had very few extra orders. OTOH, when I contact the nice Ricochet people to talk about setting up a quickie alternate (backup) feed, they were swamped with callers.
Cool - 242 messages before this, and nobody's bothered to notice the simple fact we worked out 8 years ago. Content means very little without context to wrap around it.
Sounds pretty trivial and stupid, right? Think it through - people are willing to pay >$100/year to subscribe to something like stratfor, which pretty much recapitulates information you could find with a broad sampling of news feeds. Why are people willing to pay for it? Because it sorts the wheat from the chaff, and puts it into a context that makes sense.
What's that mean in a concrete sense? Anyone care to take bets on how long it'll take Yahoo to move to a subscription model (very small, sez my money), probably one not too different from the phone book or the newspaper.
And don't these customers share some accountability, chosing an undercapitalized, poorly managed provider
Depends on when you became a customer, now, doesn't it. I signed on in July, 1998, replacing a crochety, expensive, PITA ISDN line with a 416k SDSL line that cost 1/3 as much. At the time, Northpoint was:
Well-funded
Intelligently managed
Had _really_ good techs and support staff.
Unfortunately, they IPO'd. The result was that the Wall St. dickheads started running things with an eye to short-term profit, not long-term viability of the business. Service was the first thing to go, then support, as they hired hacks by the score to deal with all their new customers. Add 2 years of explosive growth, and you get what you see currently.
Am I pissed? Yes. Am I _seriously_ pissed that I'm going to have to order a new Covad line (god help me, not one of those SBC disasters) tomorrow morning? Yes. Am I responsible for their taking a viable business plan, throwing it out the window, and trying to grab tons of market-share without worrying about profitability? NO.
Start trademarking protocol names and soon you can't write a whole sentence without;D
Prior art, Snuffie. FTP exists/existed as prior art before FTP Systems existed, and it's relatively trivial to prove that FTP Systems was named as such because of that pre-existing protocol. SSH exists because Ylonnen created it. He doesn't have a prior art claim to defend against.
I hope his lawyers have a little more common sense than he seems to display - after all the protocol has been named for longer than SSH Communications Security has held the trademark there should be no legal reason why the standard should be renamed.
You might want to look a little further back in this before making statements like that, because the reverse is in fact true. SSH was invented by Ylonnen, trademarked by Ylonnen, and released in a freeware version by Ylonnen. AFTER it was released, it was adopted as a standard by the IETF.
To put it more succinctly, IFF Ylonnen's company chooses to sue the IETF for trademark enfringement, the IETF has a single legal leg to stand on, and that's dilution of trademark. Unfortunately for them, since Ylonnen would be making a legal effort to enforce his trademark and prevent dilution at this relatively early stage, and can argue (successfully, IMHO) that the only reason he hasn't acted legally before this because (a) he's been in negotiations (that failed), and (b) he's a nice guy. The result is a pretty strong counter to the dilution defence.
I hate to see something like this, but IMHO IETF is going to get whomped on for being stupid, and again IMHO, they deserve it.
Re:Sounds like _War of the Rats_ by David Robbins
on
Enemy At The Gates
·
· Score: 1
War of the Rats was based on the same "true story" (although the truth of the story is somewhat dubious). Seeing how nobody owns the story, and no mention appears to be made of WotR in the credits, I think somebody just read the Robbins book and said "hey, here's a great novel we can rip off without paying the author a dime."
Actually, the movie is based on the 1973 book, "Enemy at the Gates", by William Craig. War of the Rats is simply a more modern retelling. If you do a little research, you find that they were working on the movie several years before WotR was published.
But Machiavelli wasn't dumb and the way they protrayed this _was_. They supposedly had one rifle for 2 soldiers and sent some up without rifles to pick up ones that were dropped from those who were killed. When these people retreated, they were mowed down by this gattling gun from their own side.
Hey! Why don't you shoot the Germans with the gattling gun! Why not put it on the front line somewhere!
I just have a hard time any military leader would keep a piece so vital for mowing down his own deserters who are deserting in the first place because they lack guns at all...
You should look at a history of the Eastern Front, then. This kind of stuff really did happen. One of the reasons being that many of the truly brilliant Soviet Generals (and Colonels, and Majors, and Captains even) were shot during the 1930s, in the purges following the Kirov Affair.
Don't believe me? Check out Russian Penal Battalions: 600 guys (or more) with rifles, one company of political-types with SMGs whose sole job was to drive the other 600 people into the Germans. You weren't allowed to use fire-and-maneuver, either - none of the tricky stuff. All "hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" tactics. Cleared a lot of minefields that way, too.
Just because it's a public place doesn't inherently give you an exclusive right to be a dickwad therein. I have just as much right to be secure from dickwads with cellphones and no manners/common sense.
You're right, though. Some people do need them. Not:
The annoying kid sitting in the row behind me at the movie theatre who decides to call his buds DURING THE PICTURE to see what's hangin'.
The stupid git driving up the street in my lane, his lane, and one of the oncoming lanes because he's got his handset jammed halfway through his ear and is talking with the two hands that are supposed to be on the wheel.
The irritating lady at the coffee shop who gets in line, then just HAS to check with her friend (at about 60Db) about her trip to the Whine Country and the new boyfriend.
The marketing twit at the next table who has to have a shouting match with a colleague while my wife and I are trying to eat dinner.
You get the idea. Personally, I find personal-level jammers much more effective. Just jam for the duration of the irritation, then turn it off when they put the phone away. Conserves battery power, leaves most airwaves open for the 80+% of the time when it's really quite acceptable to use a phone.
Of course, I've often thought of getting a vehicle-mounted jammer, then parking right outside the Palo Alto Il Fornaio or Spagos at lunch, just to piss off the mob inside.
Actually, this sounds an awful lot like MS's introduction strategy for NT. NT 3.1 was strictly server software - All of the Win 3.1/3.11 software ran on it, but wasn't compiled for 32-bit. So for several years (late 92 to late 95), either you were a server developer, or you ran Win 3.11. After 3 years of porting "lessons learned" stuff from NT to the "desktop" OS, MS finally release Win95, which was their first real consumer-grade multi-tasking OS. NT 3.5/3.51 was a good OS update, but still was mostly aimed at servers. It wasn't until NT 4 (actually the 3.0 release...) that NT became useful for workstation/desktop-type stuff. And that was a year _after_ Win95 released.
If you put Apple on the same curve, you can expect to see a _really_ useful multitasking Mac OS in about 2004-2005. If the compress the curve (which they probably will, since they don't have parallel-track desktop and server OS's, but rather a single-track GP OS), you can expect to shave 1 - 1 1/2 years off that. So you won't see a really full featured Mac OS X until about 10.5, which should release late in 2002.
Well, based on the definition set you're using, and from my perspective, you can more-or-less break the development community down into 3 groups:
Electrical engineering: This group primarly deals with hardware/firmware, using engineering principles to solve a given product design problem.
Software engineering: This group primarily deals with software, again using industry-standard engineering principles to solve a given product design problem.
Software scientists: This group does research on new technique and technology, dealing primarily with software.
Now for the killer. Based on all the exposure I've had to the industry, ~80% of software developers fit into none of the above categories. The vast majority of developers, however much they may shout and yell otherwise, are artisans, not engineers. They are to engineers as the cabinet-maker or blacksmith is to the guy who designs and supervises the construction of a bridge. They use rule-of-thumb, eschew systematic standards, and refuse to apply "real" engineering principles. This, btw, is one of the reasons why professional (certified) engineering groups really dislike the term "software engineer" - it ain't true, and it cheapens the certifications they have to spend years earning and testing for.
BTW-- Don't believe me? Go check out the design process requirements for, say, structural engineering, and then see if any "modern" software development group would be willing to apply that level of rigor.
Re:That's not what they mean by "unique."
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 1
Also, what you're seeing here is the contempt for innovation and creation in the "free everything" mentality. Tissue sources are important contributors; the knowledge, ability and work that go into scientific discovery are valueless. Sort of like how making software or music has no value but selling CD's or T-shirts does.
No, what you're seeing is upset over abuse of the system by the lawyers, companies, and/d/o/c/t/o/r/s medical entrepeneurs. My tissue is _mine_ until such time as I decide to dispose of it, and at that time it should be disposed of in the manner _I_ decide. Remember all the yelling and screaming about "a woman's right to control her body"? Guess what - it applies here, too, and not just to women.Before I grant _my_ tissue for _your_ research, I want _accurate_, _informed_ consent to what you're going to do with it. I doubt you would ask anything more for your tissue.
This, BTW, is exactly the reason why my organ-donor card (which _does_ allow for donation of organs in the event of my death) is marked "No research or sale allowed. For donation only." Since the biomedical industry refuses full informed consent for the sources of their research, I refuse to allow myself to be one of those sources.
Which principle? That it's the duty of the telephone company to monitor your phone conversation to make sure you're not discussing anything illegal or immoral? That it's the duty of the postal service to read your mail, so nothing illegal/immoral gets sent? Oh, and that a _private company_ gets to set the standards used for the above, and develop/implement/deploy the technology used to do it?
Get a clue. (a) There's a reason why ISPs are classed as common carriers. Their responsibility is to carry the traffic, NOT to serve as a judgement point about the content contained within that traffic. (b) There is not legal protective mechanism for such a system. if this German association decides you're "illegal", then users behind such a system are blocked. Please note, their definition has nothing to do with any legal process, is not appealable, and can be changed at their whim.
You make the ascertion that they are unbiased. No, they're as unbiased as the (programmers, management, whichever is lower). They are only as unbiased as the people who decide what to filter. What if I decide, in addition to the "publicly" filtered traffic, to filter anything going to a political group I don't like - say the ACLU? Now whose freedom is being curtailed? What law has been broken _by anybody_?
If you want a website to obey the law, then go after the website. Going after the users like this is like citing every person who drives down a particular street because a hooker happens to be standing on the corner.
This is something that's been around as a situation for >20 years. In the "I remember when" category, I ran into similar problems back in the early/mid 80s, for similar reasons. The fact that I was proven right is entirely beside the point.
A few lessons from way-back-then, though:
Preparedness. If you're going to go in and argue to change something, esp. something significant, make sure you have all yours ducks in a line, documentation for each duck, and you're prepared for all of the "what about this" questions.
Credibility: You're going to have a credibility issue because of your age. Deal with it. If you act like a pro, and operate like a pro, that will get you all the credibility you need. If you whine about it, you'll wipe what little credibility you have right off the board.
Experience _does_ matter: If you've been programming for two years, I don't care if you're 18 (and have a chip on your shoulder about how long you've been at it) or 25. You're still a junior coder. The flip side? Those not-quite-flipping-burgers jobs really do come in handy down the road. I can speak about warehouse operations because I ran one for 15 months while I was in HS. Hardware testing/dev.? Yep, been there. Customer service? Driven that desk.
Breadth is useful too, but only once you've got a certain amount of depth under your belt: Being broadly experienced can be _very_ handy. Being able to integrate "but this works well with that, but not over there", and come up with a solution out of a bunch of not-related parts is an incredibly handy skill. But you need some depth to that, too. If you know enough-to-get-in-trouble about a number of things, it exponentially increases your ability to screw things up seriously.
Remember that managers/etc. are used to looking at "normal" people: If you're someone who's really exceptional, it takes folks a while to deal with that - and they _never_ really get comfortable with the situation. Find your coping mechanisms.
Don't assume the world will hand you everything on a platter within 5 years of entering the industry. I've been geeking for better than 20 years. It takes a while for the rewards to show up. Meanwhile, enjoy the ride. You only get to take it once, and it changes you at every step of the way.
This reminds me of another point. With the coming of the Common Market, implementation of something like this will guarantee exactly one thing: the death of the British auto dealership industry. No sane person will buy an authorized-in-the-UK car. They will buy in France, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Italy, in Spain, in Greece, in just about any other fscking country that they can get to. None of which will come with governors.
but consider this: laws are made with the premise that the majority decides that the pros of the laws outweigh the cons, and by living in a country, agree to put the law above them.
No, laws are made with the premise that the elected special-interest-group representatives that can collectively get a majority of cast votes can gerrymander the results to fit (a) their own benefit, and (b) their special-interest desires. This is even more so in parliamentary systems of government than in multiple-branch/ multiple-layer systems (like the US - 3 branches, with two contending levels of each branch). In a parliamentary system, the parliament, elected by a majority of cast votes (NOT voters) controls everything - the legislature, the executive branch (whose members are directly appointed from amongst the winning legislative party), the judiciary, and the lower-tier governmental bodies.
Please do not confuse the above systems of government with anything having any resemblance to a majority vote, or direct popular vote. Once the legislative end of things is nailed down, the special interest groups are free to run rampant. They have no accoutability to the populace, and they have no significant checks or balances.
You might note that in England, one legislative body recently blackmailed the other legislative body into giving up all rights to act as a legislature. If you're going to HAVE an appointed upper house of parliament, isn't it your collective responsibility to make sure that you USE it, and that it's stocked with SMART people, with the BEST interests of the country in mind? No wonder the Scots want the hell out.
They're being a little optimistic about SDI, now, aren't they? When I see evidence to suggest we'll have our Magical Laser Satellites in the next 20 years, I'll believe it.
Actually, not very. A few currently-working-up programs to think about:
ABL - Airborne Laser: This is a 747-400 freighter configuration with a laser mounted in a turret in the nose. The first aircraft is currently being assembled, with ground and flight tests due to start later this year. A total of seven will be produced once the first finishes testing in 2003. Click here for more a program overview from FAS.
Navy Theatre Defense/SM-3. The Navy is currently in flight test of a theatre missile defense system based on Aegis cruisers/destroyers and an evolved SM-2 Block IV missile equiped with the LEAP (Lightweight ExoAtmospheric Projectile) hard-kill vehicle.
Arrow: This is a US-funded, Israeli-developed TMD system originally intended to provide localized target/population center protection for Israel. It has been successfully demonstrated against ballistic missile targets, however, and the program is structured to transfer technology to a next-generation US BMD system.
Most of these programs are projected for deployment within the next 10 years. Realistically, you'll see all or most of them 30-70% fielded by the 2017 putative conflict date.
And the point of war, from a modern standpoint (assuming it's US v China) is to destroy everything your enemy owns. Someone fires the first (nuclear) shot, and we all die.
Actually, that has virtually nothing to do with why and how wars are fought. Wars are fought to compel political behavior. Whether that occurs by means of destroying the opposition's forces (which is actually the hard way to do it), or by means of destroying small, key targets that compel the enemy's behavior (which requires a lot more thought, but is easier to do) is the crux of the issue.
Part of the point of the BMD stuff that's currently circulating is that it removes a major lever from any country that doesn't have >100 nuclear missiles. Simply put, if we can stop any surge attack of
Russia
United Kingdom
France
That's it. China has a total of 24 missiles, 12 (fixed) pointed at Russia, and 12 (fixed) pointed at the US. Israel has less than 100 missiles, with no more than 2-3 that might reach the US (~60 theatre missiles that can't reach the US, and 2-3 satellite launchers capable of FOBS). India and Pakistan have a few theatre weapons, but that's it. Nobody else has declared anything. South Africa has dismantled it's nuclear weapons program under international supervision. Ukraine, Khazakhstan, and the other xSSRs have all handed back their nuclear warheads to Russia (again, under international supervision). There are some loose nukes in Iran, but the capability doesn't exist to put together a greater than 20 IRBM threat (yet). Nobody else has even that much, even if they aren't declared.
Slashdot Mirror
{smack} Welcome to the concept of supporting forces. The French 2nd Armored Division all the way through France using American armor, American vehicles, American weapons, American ordnance, and serviced by American mechanics. The Canadian Army largely used British equipement. British supplies were delivered across the western front using American trucks.
A number of other folks have mentioned Frank Welch and Ken Taylor. Note for the records that after being nominated for the Medal of Honor, it was denied on grounds that they had taken off without authorization, and they were thus awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for their actions that day.
Bzzt. Lotsa bombers flown by Navy pilots. SBD (Dauntless), SB2C (Helldiver), TBD (Avenger), PBM (Mariner), PB4Y (Privateer), PBJ (Mitchell), PBY (Catalina), and a host of others.
The corporal, whose name I forget, was shortly thereafter pushed to OCS, and came out a 2nd Lieut. by mid 1942.
NetRendered
First, if all you're after is the ability to accept/reject changes to documents, then the simplest solution you want is to turn on the "Track Changes" option. You can leave the master "track" on, then either display or not display changes in either printed or written form. Also, you can selectively accept those changes to the base master document. All changes are also tracked by author, time/date, etc.
Second, if what you're after is protection of source files, then you really are going to have to implement a VCS for your writers. I've used a number of them, and fundamentally, none of them are easy for non-technical people to use without training/etc. Perforce and Clearcase both work reasonably well for cross-platform doc checkin, but, well, they're not exactly the easiest thing in the world to use. A simpler solution might be to have a decent server, and have it incrementally back up _every_ change to the doc section. You'd be surprised how easy that makes it to roll back changes. If you're also willing to be a little anal in the server setup about who owns files, it should become fairly easy, fairly quickly to resolve ownership/etc. issues.
Third, I noticed you were also talking about PDFs, and how the documentation was difficult to access. Two points here. The first is that you probably should stress to much about storing output (PDFs, generated HTML) in VCS, rather than storing source files. If you can store source properly, storing generated doc (PDF/HTML) becomes _very_ easy. The second is that making your documentation easy to access is an entirely different issue from puttingg it in a VCS. That's a matter of putting together a clear, logical structure that makes sense.
As a case in point, one of my clients about a year ago had _all_ of their documentation stored in VCSs. Their problem was not that it wasn't protected - it was that, in the course of 2 mergers, and going through 4 different writing teams, they'd _lost_ their documentation source. So before I could write word one, I had to go find the docs, sort out the doc structure, and get everything so it could once again be found and accessed.
One relatively easy-to-use structure that I've seen involved differentiating the source vs. output, and making the output available on an internal webserver. Output was automatically regenerated on a regular basis (simple scripts took care of most of it, or you can use the monkey model, and do it manually), so it was available to the entire company. Those people who needed to mess with the source files were taught how to use the VCS.
The only companies that can make money online are companies that can also make money offline. There is nothing fundamentally new about the internet, and by the law of diminishing returns it is a lot less revolutionary than the telegraph and telephone were in their day. It eases communication and remote business, sure, but it does not provide some new paradigm.
Correct, in that the internet isn't a new paradigm. Incorrect, in that there are companies that work in an online environment, that do not work in an offline environment. Why? Because the company business model is tied to a access/communications/distribution (pick 1, 2, or 3) model that relies on the internet. eBay is a great case in point. There are lots of others.
Because in 10 years most businesses will be running dumb terminals and applications will be actually running inside the software giants houses, whether something is open source or not is largely irrelevent.
Y'know, people have been saying this for >30 years. I watched it when Tymnet was launched. I watched it when Apple started shipping computers. I watched it when IBM started selling PCs. It's no more true now than it was then.
What will, potentially, happen is that business-oriented applications, OSs, and software, will move toward a centrally-run-and-managed paradigm (lease vs. own, etc.). "Home" use, however, is moving more and more towards peer-to-peer capabilities (no, I'm NOT talking about Napster-ish services), with consumer-oriented service brokers being the business model. Look at games - they're often a technical leading edge for what happens in mainstream consumer computing a few years later.
What I did NOT expect was that:
You tell me - I had a reasonable expectation of an orderly transition period. I didn't get an orderly transition, I got NUKED.
Well, I can only speak for my experience, but since our original is through RCN (nee Brainstorm), I asked them about T-1ish feeds, and was told that they'd had very few extra orders. OTOH, when I contact the nice Ricochet people to talk about setting up a quickie alternate (backup) feed, they were swamped with callers.
Sounds pretty trivial and stupid, right? Think it through - people are willing to pay >$100/year to subscribe to something like stratfor, which pretty much recapitulates information you could find with a broad sampling of news feeds. Why are people willing to pay for it? Because it sorts the wheat from the chaff, and puts it into a context that makes sense.
What's that mean in a concrete sense? Anyone care to take bets on how long it'll take Yahoo to move to a subscription model (very small, sez my money), probably one not too different from the phone book or the newspaper.
Depends on when you became a customer, now, doesn't it. I signed on in July, 1998, replacing a crochety, expensive, PITA ISDN line with a 416k SDSL line that cost 1/3 as much. At the time, Northpoint was:
- Well-funded
- Intelligently managed
- Had _really_ good techs and support staff.
Unfortunately, they IPO'd. The result was that the Wall St. dickheads started running things with an eye to short-term profit, not long-term viability of the business. Service was the first thing to go, then support, as they hired hacks by the score to deal with all their new customers. Add 2 years of explosive growth, and you get what you see currently.Am I pissed? Yes. Am I _seriously_ pissed that I'm going to have to order a new Covad line (god help me, not one of those SBC disasters) tomorrow morning? Yes. Am I responsible for their taking a viable business plan, throwing it out the window, and trying to grab tons of market-share without worrying about profitability? NO.
I guess this makes it into the "ambiguous" pile.
Start trademarking protocol names and soon you can't write a whole sentence without ;D
Prior art, Snuffie. FTP exists/existed as prior art before FTP Systems existed, and it's relatively trivial to prove that FTP Systems was named as such because of that pre-existing protocol. SSH exists because Ylonnen created it. He doesn't have a prior art claim to defend against.
You might want to look a little further back in this before making statements like that, because the reverse is in fact true. SSH was invented by Ylonnen, trademarked by Ylonnen, and released in a freeware version by Ylonnen. AFTER it was released, it was adopted as a standard by the IETF.
To put it more succinctly, IFF Ylonnen's company chooses to sue the IETF for trademark enfringement, the IETF has a single legal leg to stand on, and that's dilution of trademark. Unfortunately for them, since Ylonnen would be making a legal effort to enforce his trademark and prevent dilution at this relatively early stage, and can argue (successfully, IMHO) that the only reason he hasn't acted legally before this because (a) he's been in negotiations (that failed), and (b) he's a nice guy. The result is a pretty strong counter to the dilution defence.
I hate to see something like this, but IMHO IETF is going to get whomped on for being stupid, and again IMHO, they deserve it.
Actually, the movie is based on the 1973 book, "Enemy at the Gates", by William Craig. War of the Rats is simply a more modern retelling. If you do a little research, you find that they were working on the movie several years before WotR was published.
Hey! Why don't you shoot the Germans with the gattling gun! Why not put it on the front line somewhere!
I just have a hard time any military leader would keep a piece so vital for mowing down his own deserters who are deserting in the first place because they lack guns at all...
You should look at a history of the Eastern Front, then. This kind of stuff really did happen. One of the reasons being that many of the truly brilliant Soviet Generals (and Colonels, and Majors, and Captains even) were shot during the 1930s, in the purges following the Kirov Affair.
Don't believe me? Check out Russian Penal Battalions: 600 guys (or more) with rifles, one company of political-types with SMGs whose sole job was to drive the other 600 people into the Germans. You weren't allowed to use fire-and-maneuver, either - none of the tricky stuff. All "hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" tactics. Cleared a lot of minefields that way, too.
You're right, though. Some people do need them. Not:
You get the idea. Personally, I find personal-level jammers much more effective. Just jam for the duration of the irritation, then turn it off when they put the phone away. Conserves battery power, leaves most airwaves open for the 80+% of the time when it's really quite acceptable to use a phone.
Of course, I've often thought of getting a vehicle-mounted jammer, then parking right outside the Palo Alto Il Fornaio or Spagos at lunch, just to piss off the mob inside.
Oh yeah. product plug!
If you put Apple on the same curve, you can expect to see a _really_ useful multitasking Mac OS in about 2004-2005. If the compress the curve (which they probably will, since they don't have parallel-track desktop and server OS's, but rather a single-track GP OS), you can expect to shave 1 - 1 1/2 years off that. So you won't see a really full featured Mac OS X until about 10.5, which should release late in 2002.
Now for the killer. Based on all the exposure I've had to the industry, ~80% of software developers fit into none of the above categories. The vast majority of developers, however much they may shout and yell otherwise, are artisans, not engineers. They are to engineers as the cabinet-maker or blacksmith is to the guy who designs and supervises the construction of a bridge. They use rule-of-thumb, eschew systematic standards, and refuse to apply "real" engineering principles. This, btw, is one of the reasons why professional (certified) engineering groups really dislike the term "software engineer" - it ain't true, and it cheapens the certifications they have to spend years earning and testing for.
BTW-- Don't believe me? Go check out the design process requirements for, say, structural engineering, and then see if any "modern" software development group would be willing to apply that level of rigor.
No, what you're seeing is upset over abuse of the system by the lawyers, companies, and /d/o/c/t/o/r/s medical entrepeneurs. My tissue is _mine_ until such time as I decide to dispose of it, and at that time it should be disposed of in the manner _I_ decide. Remember all the yelling and screaming about "a woman's right to control her body"? Guess what - it applies here, too, and not just to women.Before I grant _my_ tissue for _your_ research, I want _accurate_, _informed_ consent to what you're going to do with it. I doubt you would ask anything more for your tissue.
This, BTW, is exactly the reason why my organ-donor card (which _does_ allow for donation of organs in the event of my death) is marked "No research or sale allowed. For donation only." Since the biomedical industry refuses full informed consent for the sources of their research, I refuse to allow myself to be one of those sources.
Get a clue. (a) There's a reason why ISPs are classed as common carriers. Their responsibility is to carry the traffic, NOT to serve as a judgement point about the content contained within that traffic. (b) There is not legal protective mechanism for such a system. if this German association decides you're "illegal", then users behind such a system are blocked. Please note, their definition has nothing to do with any legal process, is not appealable, and can be changed at their whim.
You make the ascertion that they are unbiased. No, they're as unbiased as the (programmers, management, whichever is lower). They are only as unbiased as the people who decide what to filter. What if I decide, in addition to the "publicly" filtered traffic, to filter anything going to a political group I don't like - say the ACLU? Now whose freedom is being curtailed? What law has been broken _by anybody_?
If you want a website to obey the law, then go after the website. Going after the users like this is like citing every person who drives down a particular street because a hooker happens to be standing on the corner.
A few lessons from way-back-then, though:
Anyway, enough old-fogginess.
No, laws are made with the premise that the elected special-interest-group representatives that can collectively get a majority of cast votes can gerrymander the results to fit (a) their own benefit, and (b) their special-interest desires. This is even more so in parliamentary systems of government than in multiple-branch/ multiple-layer systems (like the US - 3 branches, with two contending levels of each branch). In a parliamentary system, the parliament, elected by a majority of cast votes (NOT voters) controls everything - the legislature, the executive branch (whose members are directly appointed from amongst the winning legislative party), the judiciary, and the lower-tier governmental bodies.
Please do not confuse the above systems of government with anything having any resemblance to a majority vote, or direct popular vote. Once the legislative end of things is nailed down, the special interest groups are free to run rampant. They have no accoutability to the populace, and they have no significant checks or balances.
You might note that in England, one legislative body recently blackmailed the other legislative body into giving up all rights to act as a legislature. If you're going to HAVE an appointed upper house of parliament, isn't it your collective responsibility to make sure that you USE it, and that it's stocked with SMART people, with the BEST interests of the country in mind? No wonder the Scots want the hell out.
Actually, not very. A few currently-working-up programs to think about:
- ABL - Airborne Laser: This is a 747-400 freighter configuration with a laser mounted in a turret in the nose. The first aircraft is currently being assembled, with ground and flight tests due to start later this year. A total of seven will be produced once the first finishes testing in 2003. Click here for more a program overview from FAS.
- Navy Theatre Defense/SM-3. The Navy is currently in flight test of a theatre missile defense system based on Aegis cruisers/destroyers and an evolved SM-2 Block IV missile equiped with the LEAP (Lightweight ExoAtmospheric Projectile) hard-kill vehicle.
- Arrow: This is a US-funded, Israeli-developed TMD system originally intended to provide localized target/population center protection for Israel. It has been successfully demonstrated against ballistic missile targets, however, and the program is structured to transfer technology to a next-generation US BMD system.
Most of these programs are projected for deployment within the next 10 years. Realistically, you'll see all or most of them 30-70% fielded by the 2017 putative conflict date.And the point of war, from a modern standpoint (assuming it's US v China) is to destroy everything your enemy owns. Someone fires the first (nuclear) shot, and we all die.
Actually, that has virtually nothing to do with why and how wars are fought. Wars are fought to compel political behavior. Whether that occurs by means of destroying the opposition's forces (which is actually the hard way to do it), or by means of destroying small, key targets that compel the enemy's behavior (which requires a lot more thought, but is easier to do) is the crux of the issue.
Part of the point of the BMD stuff that's currently circulating is that it removes a major lever from any country that doesn't have >100 nuclear missiles. Simply put, if we can stop any surge attack of
Russia
United Kingdom
France
That's it. China has a total of 24 missiles, 12 (fixed) pointed at Russia, and 12 (fixed) pointed at the US. Israel has less than 100 missiles, with no more than 2-3 that might reach the US (~60 theatre missiles that can't reach the US, and 2-3 satellite launchers capable of FOBS). India and Pakistan have a few theatre weapons, but that's it. Nobody else has declared anything. South Africa has dismantled it's nuclear weapons program under international supervision. Ukraine, Khazakhstan, and the other xSSRs have all handed back their nuclear warheads to Russia (again, under international supervision). There are some loose nukes in Iran, but the capability doesn't exist to put together a greater than 20 IRBM threat (yet). Nobody else has even that much, even if they aren't declared.